OH Pike Co., 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue, 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #59

[Covert Operative]

There have been quite a few cases where murder ink has been introduced into murder cases. I believe G4's would fall into that category even more than BW's. His has not been talked about like BW's has because it is not visible although his tattoo is listed on discovery list.

 

[Covert Operative]

There have been quite a few cases where murder ink has been introduced into murder cases. I believe G4's would fall into that category even more than BW's. His has not been talked about like BW's has because it is not visible although his tattoo is on discovery list. They are looked at as non verbal confessions but I look at them as non verbal bragging.

 

[Betty P]

There have been quite a few cases where murder ink has been introduced into murder cases. I believe G4's would fall into that category even more than BW's. His has not been talked about like BW's has because it is not visible although his tattoo is on discovery list. They are looked at as non verbal confessions but I look at them as non verbal bragging.

Yes, BW shocked everyone when he showed up at that Kentucky arraignment with the short sleeved prison garb showing his scary tats. I wish there had been news coverage of the arrest of GW4 and Jake.

 

[Cool Cats]

If the new "76 yo" witness has critical case information that G4's attorneys feel will help his case , why didn't this witness come forward earlier?

Why now, what are their motives? G4 has been sitting in jail for over two years.

Completely IMO, the W4's original defense plan was to stick together in their lies. They thought by doing so, they could never be convicted. That defense plan is no longer working so well, so they need to start culling the herd.

All JMO

"Wagner said she told the grand jury the names of the people she suspected killed the Rhodens. As she spoke with The Plain Dealer, Wagner wouldn’t elaborate. But she repeatedly, and vehemently, stressed the innocence of her family."

If she did give this information to the GJ it didn't convince the GJ that someone else did the murders. The GJ indicted the Wagners anyway.

Seems her GJ testimony fell short. Maybe she is making up new stuff now....or adding things to her GJ testimony, desperately trying to get her grandson off.

I think she would say anything to get him off. FWF's reputation is a flat zero if they all get convicted. Her daughter will be inheriting a dying horse. Pardon my pun.

 

[Betty P]

Or she is making up new stuff now....or adding things to her GJ testimony, desperately trying to get her grandson off.

All of the above and more. FW has been skilled at con games for most of her life. She has a lot of experience. JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

All of the above and more. FW has been skilled at con games for most of her life. She has a lot of experience. JMO

If you really think that she has been skilled at con games for most of her life then maybe:

Fred and her attorney cooked up a scheme that she can give her testimony for George without having to sit in the witness box and be raked over the fiery coals by the prosecution.

Heck, I wouldn't be shocked if her lawyer fixed it up with George's lawyer.

In a deposition her lawyer and George's lawyer can get the exact answers from her they want, they have the upper hand. But on the witness stand it would be a free-for-all with Canepa chewing her up and spitting her out like a chicken bone.

I don't think her attorney (maybe even George's attorney) is too keen on her getting cross examined, remember in the interviews at her house her attorney interrupted to steer the conversation and to clarify. And that was just at her house, court would be 10X's worse.

Just saying....

 

[Ann99]

"Wagner said she told the grand jury the names of the people she suspected killed the Rhodens. As she spoke with The Plain Dealer, Wagner wouldn’t elaborate. But she repeatedly, and vehemently, stressed the innocence of her family."

If she did give this information to the GJ it didn't convince the GJ that someone else did the murders. The GJ indicted the Wagners anyway.

Seems her GJ testimony fell short. Maybe she is making up new stuff now....or adding things to her GJ testimony, desperately trying to get her grandson off.

I think she would say anything to get him off. FWF's reputation is a flat zero if they all get convicted. Her daughter will be inheriting a dying horse. Pardon my pun.

So FW did actually name names of suspected killers of the Rhodens in her GrandJury testimony. I wonder if FW realizes she will be open to answering questions ( under oath) from the Prosecution during this deposition. I can see the deposition going terribly wrong for FW and the other 4W's. She is not as smart as she thinks.FW is playing checkers while the Prosecution is playing Chess.

 

[Johnny B Bad]

FW the only thing she is worried about is losing her land and money, she thinks RW is not smart enough to manage the enterprise, JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

So FW did actually name names of suspected killers of the Rhodens in her GrandJury testimony. I wonder if FW realizes she will be open to answering questions ( under oath) from the Prosecution during this deposition. I can see the deposition going terribly wrong for FW and the other 4W's. She is not as smart as she thinks.FW is playing checkers while the Prosecution is playing Chess.

Does the prosecution have to be there if she gives a deposition?

If so, she is still safer doing a deposition with her lawyer monitoring the session
then to get cross examined in front of the jury with no help from her lawyer.

 

[Ann99]

Does the prosecution have to be there if she gives a deposition?

If so, she is still safer doing a deposition with her lawyer monitoring the session
then to get cross examined in front of the jury with no help from her lawyer.

I am a little confused by this move to depose FW.
It seems risky to me since FW has a difficult time with the truth. The jeopardy comes in with the previous dismissal, without prejudice. If she is caught in a lie, the previous charges can be reinstated.
Surely the Prosecutor could challenge FW statements if they are not backed up by fact or contradictory.
Here is what I have found.
I may be misinterpreting, but I believe all parties, all counsel, prosecution and defense attend a deposition.
Civil and Criminal procedures may be different.
I could be misunderstanding or over thinking.
Any clarifications are welcome.

Rule 15 - Deposition, Ohio Crim. R. 15 | Casetext Search + Citator

HowTaken.
Depositions shall be taken in the manner provided in civil cases.
The prosecution and defense shall have the right, as at trial, to full examination of witnesses.
A deposition taken under this rule shall be filed in the court in which the action is pending.
Use.
At the trial or upon any hearing, a part or all of a deposition, so far as otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used if the witness is unavailable, as defined in Rule 804(A) of the Ohio Rules of Evidence.

Any deposition may also be used by any party for the purpose of refreshing the recollection, or contradicting or impeaching the testimony of the deponent as a witness.

If only a part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party, any party may offer other parts.

I also relied upon this.

Criminal Depositions: Preserving Witness Testimony

How Criminal Depositions Work
Lawyers take depositions during the pretrial discovery period, the time when prosecutors and defendants gather information about the other side’s case.
In most states and in federal court, the party seeking to depose a witness must file a motion with the trial court, explaining why a good reason exists for taking the witness’s deposition.

If the trial court grants the motion, the prosecutor and defense attorney take the sworn testimony of the witness outside of court and with no judge present.

The lawyers ask the witness the same types of questions they would pose during trial. A court reporter writes down what the witness says and later produces a transcript of the deposition for use in court.

Edit to add. FW may think she can sail thru a deposition, (and maybe she could, temporarily) only to have it come back and bite her in the end.

 

[Cool Cats]

I am a little confused by this move to depose FW.
It seems risky to me since FW has a difficult time with the truth. The jeopardy comes in with the previous dismissal, without prejudice. If she is caught in a lie, the previous charges can be reinstated.
Surely the Prosecutor could challenge FW statements if they are not backed up by fact or contradictory.
Here is what I have found.
I may be misinterpreting, but I believe all parties, all counsel, prosecution and defense attend a deposition.
Civil and Criminal procedures may be different.
I could be misunderstanding or over thinking.
Any clarifications are welcome.

Rule 15 - Deposition, Ohio Crim. R. 15 | Casetext Search + Citator

HowTaken.
Depositions shall be taken in the manner provided in civil cases.
The prosecution and defense shall have the right, as at trial, to full examination of witnesses.
A deposition taken under this rule shall be filed in the court in which the action is pending.
Use.
At the trial or upon any hearing, a part or all of a deposition, so far as otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used if the witness is unavailable, as defined in Rule 804(A) of the Ohio Rules of Evidence.

Any deposition may also be used by any party for the purpose of refreshing the recollection, or contradicting or impeaching the testimony of the deponent as a witness.

If only a part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party, any party may offer other parts.

I also relied upon this.

Criminal Depositions: Preserving Witness Testimony

How Criminal Depositions Work
Lawyers take depositions during the pretrial discovery period, the time when prosecutors and defendants gather information about the other side’s case.
In most states and in federal court, the party seeking to depose a witness must file a motion with the trial court, explaining why a good reason exists for taking the witness’s deposition.

If the trial court grants the motion, the prosecutor and defense attorney take the sworn testimony of the witness outside of court and with no judge present.

The lawyers ask the witness the same types of questions they would pose during trial. A court reporter writes down what the witness says and later produces a transcript of the deposition for use in court.

Edit to add. FW may think she can sail thru a deposition, (and maybe she could, temporarily) only to have it come back and bite her in the end.

That answers it, Canepa would be at her deposition.

Her criminal case can be recharged so she has to be more careful - I forgot all about that aspect.

I wonder if it's her idea to testify for George or if George's attorney likes what she said in her GJ testimony so he is compelling her to be a defense witness?

If what she said is true that she named names, the only way to get these specific names in front of the jury is to get her deposition or to get her on the stand at trial.
If she is naming names, for some reason the names need to come from her directly.

I do think it is significant if she actually will name other people. Anyone can say a group did it but specific names could be taken more seriously.

Unless she lied to The Plain Dealer that she named names. Why lie about it? I guess to make it seem like LE arrested the wrong family.

If she didn't have any specific names of other shooters I doubt she would be as critical of a witness as the defense is making her out to be.

She has something important to say because she is not just a witness, she's a
critical witness.

 

[Johnny B Bad]

That answers it, Canepa would be at her deposition.

Her criminal case can be recharged so she has to be more careful - I forgot all about that aspect.

I wonder if it's her idea to testify for George or if George's attorney likes what she said in her GJ testimony so he is compelling her to be a defense witness?

If what she said is true that she named names, the only way to get these specific names in front of the jury is to get her deposition or to get her on the stand at trial.
If she is naming names, for some reason the names need to come from her directly.

I do think it is significant if she actually will name other people. Anyone can say a group did it but specific names could be taken more seriously.

Unless she lied to The Plain Dealer that she named names. Why lie about it? I guess to make it seem like LE arrested the wrong family.

If she didn't have any specific names of other shooters I doubt she would be as critical of a witness as the defense is making her out to be.

She has something important to say because she is not just a witness, she's a
critical witness.

So FW is going to testify for GW4 but hasn’t said anything about Billy, Angela and Jake does that mean the people that FW is going tell about committing the murders is Billy, Angela and Jake, JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

So FW is going to testify for GW4 but hasn’t said anything about Billy, Angela and Jake does that mean the people that FW is going tell about committing the murders is Billy, Angela and Jake, JMO

Don't make my head explode....lol

That would be some crazy testimony.

What if it's the only path forward for George?

She would not throw her Billy boy under the bus, but if she did this, it would be A & J.

Jake because there is too much evidence against him already and Angela because FW needs to blame someone for this whole mess. Angela had her hands all over the fake custody documents that advertised to prosecutors a strong motive for Jake - he wanted custody.

And Angela tied her grandsons directly to the shoes, didn't toss the receipt and told BCI she showed the shoes to them which put them directly under the bus. She did not have to say anything. Did not even have to say she bought them for them.

George's attorney has pointed to A & J already.

 

[Ann99]

So FW is going to testify for GW4 but hasn’t said anything about Billy, Angela and Jake does that mean the people that FW is going tell about committing the murders is Billy, Angela and Jake, JMO

lol. That would be epic.

 

[Puzzles8]

So FW is going to testify for GW4 but hasn’t said anything about Billy, Angela and Jake does that mean the people that FW is going tell about committing the murders is Billy, Angela and Jake, JMO

IMO the 76yo's deposition will throw only Angie under the bus. I sense there is no love lost between Fred and Angie.

More importantly, blood is always thicker than water..

JMO

 

[Antimony]

If one caves in all the others will beg for mercy.
It will then be time to see if others, UN-named or not related, get dragged under the bus as well.
The family might spill a lot of beans to escape the needle.
That might be an entertaining spectacle.

 

[Puzzles8]

There have been quite a few cases where murder ink has been introduced into murder cases. I believe G4's would fall into that category even more than BW's. His has not been talked about like BW's has because it is not visible although his tattoo is on discovery list. They are looked at as non verbal confessions but I look at them as non verbal bragging.

Is Billy's scorpion tattoo also in Discovery?

 

[Covert Operative]

Is Billy's scorpion tattoo also in Discovery?

Yes BW's is listed and G4's is listed. It has never been in MSM what his is but it has been said.

 

[Puzzles8]

Yes BW's is listed and G4's is listed. It has never been in MSM what his is but it has been said.

I remember "George Tattoo" in one of Billy's early Discoveries. I think many assumed this was Billy's scorpion.

Can you help me find the Discovery with Billy's tattoo?

TIA

 

[Cool Cats]

Yes BW's is listed and G4's is listed. It has never been in MSM what his is but it has been said.

Angela's Discovery

Tattoo - Billy
Release Form (1 p)

This is all I remember seeing about tattoos. Do you have a link to George's tattoo?

At George's Bond Hearing Canepa said there's alot more evidence including a tattoo or tattoos. This sounds like a tattoo implicates George or else why mention it at his Bond Hearing?